The firm later refunded the businesses more than $350,000. Smith resigned in August 2007.

Smith told the panel that his clients were well-represented and obtained excellent results for low fees. He also claimed he was a victim of a witch hunt by the firm and that it pursued a grievance against him in order to cover itself against litigation, according to the grievance board's opinion. Smith also said his clients sanctioned the billing practices.

In a statement, Weston Hurd said: "This was an unfortunate event in our firm's history. As soon as we learned of the situation, we took every reasonable step to investigate it, and when confronted with the allegations, Mr. Smith left the firm and has not practiced law here since 2007.

"We then consulted with all of his clients who were affected and promptly refunded any fees that were inappropriately billed. Our clients should be assured that we have taken all reasonable measures to ensure that this type of conduct will not occur again.''

The board made its recommendation to the state Supreme Court, which will make a decision. It is unclear when that will happen.

Smith's attorney, Kenneth Donchatz, said in a statement that the grievance board's opinion "is only a report and recommendation, not a final order imposing discipline. Mr. Smith is pursuing an appeal of the board's recommendation.''

The Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Smith on July 29, 2011, alleging that he billed clients for work done by another member at Weston Hurd and for work that was never done by anyone at the firm.

The complaint alleged that the time billed for certain work was in excess of the time it took to perform a task. The disciplinary counsel also said Smith "billed identical charges in the same amount of time on the same day to multiple cases and clients.''

The board of commissioners' opinion said Smith began as an associate at Weston Hurd in 1989 and became a partner in 1996. He became the firm's managing partner in 2005. While at the firm, Smith represented businesses that offered assisted-living and senior care.

In March 2007, lawyers in the firm noticed Smith's billing practices and found them to be excessive and fraudulent, according to the grievance board's report. The issue was brought to senior attorneys in the firm, and they decided to take it to an outside ethics counsel to handle the matter.

On Aug. 15, 2007, a top attorney at Weston Hurd told Smith that the firm would contact his clients. The next morning, he resigned, effective Aug. 31.

Smith told the panel that his billing practices -- in which generic statements were used several times throughout files to describe work that was done -- "were the result of his clients' desire to keep confidential matters from being subject to discovery due to their fear that (attorneys) would use any confidential information (they) could obtain to pursue punitive damages,'' according to the grievance board's opinion.

The board's report said no one from the companies corroborated Smith's account. The board said in its opinion there was no evidence that Weston Hurd engaged in a witch hunt.

"Rather than simply give the managing partner of the firm the benefit of the doubt, Weston Hurd chose to undertake an extensive investigation and, at the end of that investigation, gave (Smith) the opportunity to respond to the results of the investigation before any of (Smith's) clients were contacted,'' the grievance board said.

The disciplinary counsel sought a two-year suspension for Smith. But the board of commissioners on grievances went further, saying it "believes that an indefinite suspension is the more appropriate sanction in this matter.''

"For a significant amount of time, (Smith) was the only attorney working on the long-term client files who had access to the billing records,'' the board's opinion said. "The evidence was such that (Smith) took advantage of that fact, by changing and padding the bills to which he alone primarily had access.

"When (Smith's) actions finally came to light, (he) denied any wrongdoing. (Smith) repeatedly claimed that his clients requested that he bill that way due to the uniqueness of long-term care practice. The clients, however, refused to corroborate (his) version of the events.''

The board's opinion includes a recommendation that Smith pay all restitution before being allowed to practice law again.

It is unclear why the complaint took so long to get to the Supreme Court's board of grievances. The opinion mentions civil litigation that Weston Hurd brought against Smith, and it is possible that slowed the process. But a check of court dockets across Northeast Ohio shows no mention of any lawsuits.

Follow Us

cleveland.com is powered by Plain Dealer Publishing Co. and Northeast Ohio Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Northeast Ohio Media Group LLC.